There are battles you can win, battles you may lose and battles that aren't worth waging.  This is an example of the latter.  I'll toss my opinions in as a time waster on a lazy afternoon at work, but I don't expect anything to come about due to my (or anyone else's) input.

Quick grammar question. Can you use 'latter' when there are three things in a series?  Which one then, is the former? The first? What's the middle one called?

You can use latter on its own for any number of items in a series.  You are just referring to the last one.

If you use former AND latter, then you should use it with just two items.

Really, I find your post pretty naive.

Is this all you have to add to your own discussion? I haven't seen you present a single shred of proof, or even any argument based on facts to indicate actual corruption or incompetence. Instead you make vague statements with no facts to back them up with and claim that the others, who actually do back up their statements, are naive?

Eco, if you want political discussion to be an exchange of opinion instead of facts, then please make that clear from the get-go. Right now you're simply misleading people by asking for facts when what you really want is their feelings (and what you really really want is for everyone to agree with you, which won't happen since your opinion is, as far as we can tell through your posts, unfounded).

Honestly though, Eco is what he is.  Berating at him clearly isn't going to change anything and may actually be what he is looking for, since there is some sort of persecution complex thing going for the hardcore republicans over the last few years (seriously, listen to Limbaugh).

Post in the threads if you find them interesting enough to contribute to, but asking Eco to change his stripes just isn't worth it at this point.

I think it depends largely on what else the administration is believed to have done, regardless of whether that administration is red or blue.  The Bush Jr administration would have been raked over the coals.  Bush Sr, probably not.  I was too young to really know what the climate of such things was over the Reagan administration.

If it were a Republican administration right now though?  I do think there would be a greater sense of outrage given that it's clear the majority of Americans don't like Republicans.  You reap what you sow.

This case isn't about the Authenticator. It's about Blizzard account security, which we've ourselves pointed out on this very forum is lackluster at best. I'm one of the people who've lost a WoW account permanently because their security is insufficient. I hadn't used it for years, but when I tried to log back in, I couldn't. This has happened to a LOT of people. Their accounts, regardless of type of password used, are hacked and gone, and Blizzard has refused to acknowledge that they've got a problem on their end. Instead they started selling Authenticators, turning their own bad security into a product.

So yeah, I can see why they're being sued, and I think it's good that their lack of security gets to be looked closer at in court.

I'm not entirely sure that it's a lack of security so much that it's just such a rich target.  Any entity can be hacked with the right amount of resources - it just so happens Blizzard is pretty target rich for the reason you state.  There are probably millions of inactive accounts that can get compromised with zero ability to identify that they are compromised.

It's of course possible that Blizzard is negligent here, but I'd doubt that is the case.

But...but... George Lucas is STILL involved in the script? 

That has always been his strong side though. It's when he gets heavily involved in directing that things go bad.

Yeah, just give him two characters and a fireplace and watch him weave his words of magic. 

Nice.  Applause.

This will be interesting.  If the suit actually somehow wins, it sets an epic bad precedent for any accounts that provide 2FA as an option (so basically anything worth a shit).

I've completely given up on the tree climbing.  I fall more often than not.

I started smoking weed about ten years ago and I was already in my 30s at that point.  I used to go out a couple nights per week drinking but weed supplanted that.  No hangover, no jackholes to put up with at the bar, cheaper by a long shot, and FOOD.TASTES.SO.F'ING.AWESOME!!

Funny, I have the exact opposite view.  I only drink cause it's a great activity to pass time with friends.  I have no desire to sit at home and drink or light up alone.  And since bars in CA have banned smoking, I don't see it taking over from alcohol anytime soon.

Nah.  Booze is enough for me.

Obviously the change in demographics of this country, coupled with the fact that this President you all elected was never fully vetted, has led to a direction for this country that i I'll be stunned if it leads to anything but higher unemployment, more government and more debt.  And sadly, due to the massive government handouts, more idiots.

So let me get this straight... the change in demographics (more minorities, more young people, less bible thumping rich old white dudes) is cause for the ruin of this country?

Gotcha.

Well, the last president who was overweight was Taft. So yeah, it does matter that Christie is pudgy. That doesn't mean he's unelectable by any means, it's just that being a fatty fatty boombalatty is going to make it more difficult.

Why should it matter thought?   What specifically about a person being overweight makes them somehow unfit to be president for some people?

Well, aside from their higher propensity towards, you know, dying, I suppose nothing makes them unfit.  But being fat *does* make them undesirable.  Them's the breaks, yo.

They always happen in the 2nd term because all the corrupt things presidents do in the first term come to light.

What are they going to be for Obama?

Donald Trump worked for Obama.

Actually LOL'd at this.

Is it just me, or does GT seems smarter all of a sudden?

I'm still baffled that there is (was?) someone here dumber than you, man.  My world is shattered.

Wow, these demographics are hugely telling.

The Republican Party, as it stands today, cannot win a national vote going forward.  Period.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

The Republican party just needs to figure out how to cater to the ever growing Latino population who, really, should be voting Republican but votes Democratic instead.

Or they could just continue trying to deport them.

The second most important tenant of the modern Conservative movement is that the modern Conservative movement is never wrong.  It cannot fail; it can only *be* failed.  The "reevaluation" you're going to see over the next few days will not be about why the right-wing ideology relentlessly championed by Mitt Romney proved to be so toxic in a general election -- it will come in the form of all the Republican friends and family you have suddenly discovering, for the very first time, that they never supported Romney at all.  He lost, they'll say, because he wasn't Conservative enough.

Rush Limbaugh spent at *least* forty-five minutes making this exact point on his show today.  Mitt Romney?  Nice guy, good family man, shrewd businessman, but if only he'd been more Conservative, spent more time calling the President a liberal, been less timid in his embrace of Conservative Truth, they could have overthrown Obama's regime of prejudice and hate.  

We're four years closer to transforming the country into a tyrannical socialist commune, said Rush, and it could have been reversed if only the Republicans would have engaged in a robust, happy, forthright presentation of Conservatism.

Limbaugh and my local right-wing talk show hosts also spent a good part of the day grousing about how unfair and unrepresentative the electoral college is, as though they weren't describing it as an example of the divine prescience of our founding fathers back when Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.

I'm fucking baffled.  I mean I get why Limbaugh and other talk show hosts are spouting this message - they are catering to their audience.  But there's got to be no goddamn way the rest of the party thinks this.  The theory of 'well, we didn't get enough of our old, rich, white, bible thumping base out to the polls' just cannot at all be grounded in fact.  There's no way that being MORE conservative brings them a measurably larger turnout of the people who are probably already all voting their way.  Even if it did, it certainly wouldn't outweigh the minorities, women, and younger people who *aren't* all voting today and the ones that are, are clearly against conservatism.  This logic simply can't stand.

I mean a two party system is shitty, but a one party system is fucking awful.  The Republicans need to get their shit together.

I don't know what it will be. Probably not graft and corruption or other illegal activities; this white house seems as above-board as any. I'm leaning toward a clintonesque zippergate episode.

I see it the other way. Obama doesn't seem like a guy who would cheat. But given he's from Chi-town, corruption seems like an option.  Maybe around solar companies.

Racist.

Wow, these demographics are hugely telling.

The Republican Party, as it stands today, cannot win a national vote going forward.  Period.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Also, really great concession by Mr Romney.

That was an ass kicking.

I wouldn't call Obama being the first president to win reelection with a smaller number of electoral votes than he earned the first time to an "ass kicking".

There's almost no way any candidate in the rest of my lifetime accomplishes what Obama did in 2008. That does not at all take away from the fact that this was an epic ass kicking. The Republican party flipped TWO states back from 2008, one just barely. This election, particularly the demographics from exit polls show that the party needs to really reevaluate it's approach.

That was an ass kicking.

Useful and interesting for today:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

I've only had one opportunity (ten year reunion) and I skipped it without giving it much thought.  Similar situation as you though: it's in LA and I'm in SF, which is marginally inconvenient.  I've kept in contact with the two people I actually cared to keep in contact with.  I really had no major reason to go... I'm sure if I was still in LA I would have gone, but I couldn't justify caring enough to buy a plane ticket and hotel room to make it happen.

I have to admit I did want to show the level of awesome I have achieved relative to everyone else, but people can see that on Facebook so that was good enough for me.

A long chase sequence through thin, crowded streets and back alleys. Here's where the game truly fails to recognize its own limitations. In order to run, you have to hold down the run button. The thing is, this button also doubles as the free running/climbing button. In practical terms, they might as well have given you the primary objective "Fail if you touch a wall during this extended chase", because that's what it is. You touch a wall, you fail. There's no coming back from that. Have fun replaying the entire chase, because there are no checkpoints. Then have the game taunt you with an optional objective that requires you not to shove/tackle anyone, and put an unavoidable crowd of people around the first bend. That's just rubbing salt in the wounds. Had to turn off the game after trying this chase five times and doing worse every time. Every single failure happened because I touched a wall, and let me tell you, the paths this chase tells you to run are full of twists and turns and are very narrow.

I remember this mission.  It was fucking awful.

[and continued many of Bush's programs and in fact expanded them to continually violate other nation's sovereignty via drone strikes and also permanently extended the war on terror. Oh and we can kill American citizens without trial too.]

Overall, I think Obama's done a good job with foreign policy and continued many of Bush's programs and in fact expanded them to continually violate other nation's sovereignty via drone strikes and also permanently extended the war on terror. Oh and we can kill American citizens without trial too.

FTFY.

Better drone strikes than soldiers.

If we're talking presidential:

I used to vote for whatever candidate was most economically advantageous to my own, selfish way of living.  Then I realized that who the president was barely mattered to me since I am a such a financial minority (forever single, high-ish tax bracket, mixed investment/regular income, no kids, no mortgage) in this country that neither party gives two shits about my vote so I get raped with taxes regardless.

So this year I'm deciding my vote based on a couple of factors:
A) He who is more like me from a social politics standpoint.  I am anti-religion in government, pro equality, and generally against everything the conservative Republicans stand for.  While I understand certain arguments (abortion, for example, definitely has two sides), when it comes to certain things like gay-marriage, I literally cannot look at anyone with an opposing viewpoint to mine without thinking they are literally fucking retarded.  Character flaw in me, probably, but it's really not worth arguing so don't bother.
B) How the current president makes us look to other nations around the world.  I travel internationally a lot both for business and leisure, so I actually care how I'm viewed when I step foot on foreign soil.  I can tell you during the Bush administration I did my best to hide that I was an American because we did an epic amount of stupid shit during that amount of time that caused a ridiculous amount of foreign disdain.  Overall, I think Obama's done a good job with foreign policy and repaired a lot of what went wrong in the past.  I actually don't think Romney would do a bad job here, but unfortunately he has the stench of the Bush party on him so we're going to lose some points if he is elected.  Not a lot, but some.

Now when it comes to state and local politics, I like to think I am in the 'stop stupid Californians' party.  Unfortunately I am outnumbered and we continually pass measures that we can't afford.  Fuck this state.  YOU'RE LUCKY YOU HAVE NICE WEATHER, CALIFORNIA.

I have given up on optional goals. Made the frustration level go down a lot. They seem to be the really sketchy part.

Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Suck though, because I've always been very thorough in the Assassin's Creed games, which means it's not fun to abandon that concept now.

I've generally always ignored the goals and the game has been *mostly* good, but it still definitely has a few frustrating/vague moments.

All that being said, it's still a lot of fun.

yeah, the free release day shipping usually disappears the Friday before release.  I think it is because at that point they would have no choice but to send it next day air; I've had release day items ship out on a Saturday or even Sunday in order to get it to me on the following Tuesday with two day delivery.

This is what I've observed as well.

Ditto.

He is pro-life
He is against gay marriage;  please note, I do not believe gay partners should be prohibited from receiving the same benefits married couples receive in regard to taxes, insurance etc.  From a purely religious stand point however, I believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman and I ask you to please let this go, as it is not worth discussing further than this.

Christianity doesn't own the word or even the concept of marriage, the thought that it does is ludicrous. Marriage as a concept predates Christianity and exists in just about every culture around the world. The semantic game being played is horseshit of the highest degree. If a pair of atheists can get married, so should a same sex couple.

dingdingdingdingdingdingding

Incorrect.  None of those societies spoke English.  Duh.

Rational:

I am, however, extremely concerned about the direction this country is going and Obama has compounded this worry exponentially.  I've never been a Romney fanboy, or anything like one, and prior to August supported him with the idea "lesser of too evils".  Now, however I feel he is 100% more qualified and ready to lead this country out of the mess we are in (caused by republican and democrat alike, they're all incompetent, 3 day workweek fools)...

Irrational:

...than this inept, clueless, verging very closely on socialist idiot we have in office now.

However I've never been more concerned about our country than I am now and believe with all my heart if you can't cut through all the crap and realize how much of a failure this community organizer, unqualified shill, we as a country voted into office has been than you really need to step back and reexamine things.

I'd ask for examples of each: 1) Romney winning your vote... genuinely curious here and 2) Obama being socialist, unqualified, inept, and clueless but I don't think I'd really get either.

I'm enjoying this one, it harkens back to the games of my childhood. The one thing that I really dislike and can't believe they omitted is the lack of a "prone" option. Is it really not available, or have I just not figured it out yet? I just played mission 2 and wanted my sniper to lay low on top of the bus.

The game is designed around the cover mechanics and you want to have your soldiers in cover more or less all the time during the missions.  Being out in the open at the end of a turn is risky.

There is supposed to be an aim penalty when shooting at targets on a higher elevation, but I rarely put snipers/soldiers on top of vehicles (especially ones that are on fire  ).  My snipers got the job done at the ground

There's definitely an aim penalty/aim bonus for elevation.  In general being higher is always advantageous to being lower (even lower under full cover).  The risk of being higher are the fucking flying bastards who will absolutely destroy you, since they are even (or better) elevation and at that point you have no cover.

My strategy was to go high when I was relatively sure it was safe from anything that flies.

I may have the numbers wrong, but I think you get a +20 bonus to defense when on higher ground than the attacker. This is the same bonus as low cover, but 20 less than high cover.

It seemed to me (and this is entirely anecdotal) that it depended on how much higher you were than the enemy.  I also thought I got some 100% chance for crits depending on height as well.

Then again, it's been a few weeks since I've fired up the game and I could be misremembering things.

I'm enjoying this one, it harkens back to the games of my childhood. The one thing that I really dislike and can't believe they omitted is the lack of a "prone" option. Is it really not available, or have I just not figured it out yet? I just played mission 2 and wanted my sniper to lay low on top of the bus.

The game is designed around the cover mechanics and you want to have your soldiers in cover more or less all the time during the missions.  Being out in the open at the end of a turn is risky.

There is supposed to be an aim penalty when shooting at targets on a higher elevation, but I rarely put snipers/soldiers on top of vehicles (especially ones that are on fire  ).  My snipers got the job done at the ground

There's definitely an aim penalty/aim bonus for elevation.  In general being higher is always advantageous to being lower (even lower under full cover).  The risk of being higher are the fucking flying bastards who will absolutely destroy you, since they are even (or better) elevation and at that point you have no cover.

My strategy was to go high when I was relatively sure it was safe from anything that flies.

I'm not the one claiming I am.  We have two bad choices. Arguing passionately about one being better than the other is pointless when they're identically awful.

I wouldn't say they are identically awful.  They are mostly different kinds of awful, but they sum to a nearly equal level of awful.

And at the end of the day, neither of one of them matters in the least to me.

I'm bummed to be missing the parade today.  I made it to the 2010 one, but can't get work off today to go down there.

I've missed both and I live within walking distance (1.5 miles) of the civic center.

I almost edited to include the clarification that both sides should be tested.

Obama's side just has more that wouldn't qualify.

The fundamental issue is that what Romney said (albeit horrifically poorly) is somewhat true.  The majority of the US voting populace does not actually think when they vote.  They vote along party lines.  They've rarely, if ever voted away from their party and they probably never will.  They shun any and all logic that a reasonable person would use to say 'hey... wait a minute.'  I'd venture this # at probably 80% and equally split between the two major parties.  

So really now the candidates are fighting for a swing of 20% of the vote.  And probably 90% of that 20% (18% of the total for you non mathletes) already has a bias at an even 50/50 split between the two parties.  They *can* be swayed, but its not easy.  These are probably reasonable people, as everyone has bias.  The remainder, a total of 2% of the popular vote, can definitely be swayed.  These are, obviously, the rare exception.

Now the interesting thing is that to win the election, you don't need to change the 80% mind.  You just need to convince approximately half of the 20%.  And almost half of that won't take much convincing.

My contention from the very beginning is that based on my above theory being true, Romney should have been the one to have this in the bag since the previous four years have not been too rosey.  I thought this of Kerry in 2004 as well.  The problem is, as I've stated before, both the Kerry campaign and the Romney campaign have utterly failed in what should have been a relatively easy win.  Because they were both bad.

Similar to the time I was almost hit head on by a 90 yo lady going the wrong way on a one way street.  Elderly people should really be tested occasionally after a certain point to determine whether they're capable of driving safely.  If I were 80, I'd want to be tested .

I know very little of your politics, but this struck me as quite crazy - In Denmark, once you reach a certain age, 60 I think, you have to take a doctors appointment every second year to hold on to your drivers license. Once you are seventy, its every year and it gets more restrictive after that. Because of course reaction time, the ability to turn your head and the like gets impaired physically as you age.

Do you mean to say there is NO such thing in the US?

FREEDOMS.

Blurgh.

We have a fundamental disagreement, in that I believe if you or anyone label Obama as anything but an epic failure you probably ought to be tested before being allowed to vote. (I kid, sort of)

So, what you're saying is that anyone that disagrees with your opinion should be put under more stringent requirements before they're allowed to vote. Tell me, does this also apply to those of the opposite sex, different ethnicity, and/or sexual preference?

Sort of.

Is it no wonder many of us view you as a joke and treat you accordingly? 

Ding ding. 

I respect and admire many Republicans.  I'd reckon it's a fifty fifty split between the parties amongst my peer group/friends, actually.  I'm the guy who bought a 'You're going to be disappointed!' bumper sticker (that I did not put on my bumper because thats fucking stupid) in 2008 so I could to say I TOLD YOU SO, FUCKERS.  In general, I find the vehement Obama supporters amongst the people I know and the people I read on the internet to be the most grating, ignorant, self-serving, and annoying.  Eco puts those people to shame.  AND ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

And frankly, I am disappointed.  To ATB's point, there is basically NO reasonable conservative viewpoint on this forum.  As a moderate, I only really come in here from time to time because it's not a lot of fun seeing a whole lot of 'YEAH DUDE FUCK THOSE REPUBLICANS' (effectively, not exactly) posts where everyone agrees.  There are a few controversial topics from time to time (Gun Control, for example) where we get some level of discussion, but when it comes to the POTUS or other general election bits, this forum is decidedly blue.  I'd like to see intelligent discourse on both sides, but clearly that's just not going to happen here.  For whatever reason, the conservative posters here tend to go full on retard. 

I think you're just upset that someone is calling you out on your trolling.  I actually don't think you're this stupid, to be honest.  Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me, who knows?